Where are we headed?

[wizop]

I read articles saying that cable is on the way out and will be replaced by the streaming services and I can see the logic, but I don't see the equipment. Currently I run DirecTV through a receiver to get surround sound. I have a Roku to access the streaming services. I see ads for smart tv's and the new receivers are starting to show a new version of Dolby surround sound, but I don't see devices that do everything you'd want in a world of streaming media without cable. TV's tend not to have audio out with the full surround sound signal. Receivers build in streaming audio services but I haven't seen any incorporating the receiving video services. Will we see TVs that build in a proper amplifier and inputs for a full set of speakers or receivers that handle streaming video and include a hard disk or will computers replace receivers. Am I missing something that's out there now or coming soon that will turn a signal on the internet into a full home theater experience?

[willland]

I think media servers or HTPC's are the future for those that take this stuff seriously.

 

As these streaming services develop and become more reliable and more the norm, satellite and cable will lose their customers at an alarming rate.  But hold on, "Big Brother" will want a bigger piece of the pie and the low cost that we are enjoying now may not be so low in the future.  

 

Just my take.

 

Bill

[derrickdj1]

I think it will be a while before TV's change to full surround mode.  Most people are not demanding that yet.  Cost for seeing shows via streaming are getting cheap compared to cable TV.  Netflix and Hula are good examples. 

[Audible Nectar]

The other issue besides lack of multichannel sound with streaming services is picture quality. Even with streaming services in HD the cable looks better in terms of picture. To get both the best picture quality and multichannel sound takes a ton of bandwidth, and providers aren't delivering that level of quality - at least not for the low costs people are accustomed to paying now. It will come, but so will the increased price. As cable-as-we-know-it gets phased out, quality streaming will become more the norm, but at prices that are more reflective of what people are used to paying with cable.

 

In other words, the industry WILL get your money, one way or the other.

[wizop]

The other issue besides lack of multichannel sound with streaming services is picture quality. 

 

Good point although my wife doesn't seem to notice the differences the way I do.  I really like 1080 with good surround and since my surround speakers are in the ceiling, I'm looking forward to ATMOS.  I'd pay a premium price for a high quality streaming service even if it had to stream to hard disk to get around the bandwidth issue.  I don't need instant gratification.  Perhaps that's part of the problem though; unless the hard disk comes from the streaming service like my DirecTV DVR, they'd need to figure out a way to make the downloaded content expire.

[Paducah Home Theater]

If you switch to streaming, you won't ever get to talk to the cute girl that works at the movie store. Just sayin.

[Fjd]

I read articles saying that cable is on the way out and will be replaced by the streaming services and I can see the logic, but I don't see the equipment.

 

 

As cable-as-we-know-it gets phased out, quality streaming will become more the norm, but at prices that are more reflective of what people are used to paying with cable.

 

In other words, the industry WILL get your money, one way or the other.

 

 

I believe that there is still a lot of posturing over the actual infrastructure that will deliver all of these “services” that needs to resolve itself before we see a large selection of content and equipment.  Once the infrastructure falls into place and becomes more efficient and profitable, you will see more content providers and more equipment providers enter the marketplace.

 

Search “dark fiber” and look who is buying all of the unused fiber optic cable around the world.  You will find that Google and Facebook have been buying much of the unused fiber optics.  Google now owns over 100,000 miles of fiber optic cable routes globally.

 

The demarcation point was probably the “Telecommunications Act of 1996,” which is described as an “Act to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.”

 

Before 1996, the telecommunication companies were regulated; however, with the Internet and new technology on a steep and consistent spiraling rise toward the sky, the government handed over the regulation of the telecommunications companies to regulate themselves and develop the U.S. data infrastructure.

 

After about $25 billion in tax breaks, this extensive fiber optics network was developed; however, the dot-com crash brought many of these companies down and many underwent mergers and bankruptcies, essentially, eliminating these companies before they had a chance to set up the necessary hardware to interact with the fiber-optic lines.

 

Essentially, there are hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of miles of “dark fiber” related to the network of fiber-optic cable built in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

 

During that period of time, telecom giants such as AT&T and Verizon (formerly GTE) bought up many of these companies for pennies on the dollar (including the respective fiber optic networks) and the interesting aspect here is that both had huge vested interests in keeping copper wires around for a while longer, since copper wire was used by their "cash cows" known as DSL and wire-line telephone services.

 

For years now this expansive network of ultrafast cabling has gone essentially unused with a huge upside of untapped potential.  Only recently the “copper cash cow” having essentially run its course, you are finding that these companies have begun offering consumer-level fiber-optic television, phone and Internet services. 

 

Copper is becoming obsolete due to demand that is driven by "skyrocketing Internet video traffic, requests from the financial sector for ever-faster trading connections, and soaring mobile phone use - which has to be tied into landline networks."

 

This brings us back to Google and Facebook buying up huge portions of unused fiber optic cable that the huge telecoms don't own.

 

However, as Audible Nectar has pointed out, we all will still be dealing with massive corporations.  Progress at its finest!

 

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303863404577285260615058538

Edited December 7, 2014 by Fjd

[Paducah Home Theater]

I actually have fiber to my house. I love it, but not necessary because of the speed. It's fast at 30-35 mbps, but nowadays cable can be even faster. I mostly love it because it NEVER goes out. I have TV, phone, and internet coming through it. Nothing ever goes down. Ever. Plus, installation is very clean, I prewired the hell out of my house and only have one fiber coming in. I have no overhead wires, nothing stapled on to the side of my house, no ugly dishes, storms don't effect anything, etc. It's the bees knees.

Only thing I don't like is that services are expensive. You don't get competition so the service provider can charge whatever they please. At least with Dish Network vs. DirecTV there is competition and the customer at least somewhat comes out ahead. It's still not too bad but for internet, phone, and high def TV, I could easily spend $200 a month. I don't, and only get internet and basic TV and phone for like $110. That's still quite a bit though. You can't just only have internet either, they force you to have phone services.

[Fjd]

 

I actually have fiber to my house. I love it, but not necessary because of the speed. It's fast at 30-35 mbps, but nowadays cable can be even faster. I mostly love it because it NEVER goes out. I have TV, phone, and internet coming through it. Nothing ever goes down. Ever. Plus, installation is very clean, I prewired the hell out of my house and only have one fiber coming in. I have no overhead wires, nothing stapled on to the side of my house, no ugly dishes, storms don't effect anything, etc. It's the bees knees.

Only thing I don't like is that services are expensive. You don't get competition so the service provider can charge whatever they please. At least with Dish Network vs. DirecTV there is competition and the customer at least somewhat comes out ahead. It's still not too bad but for internet, phone, and high def TV, I could easily spend $200 a month. I don't, and only get internet and basic TV and phone for like $110. That's still quite a bit though. You can't just only have internet either, they force you to have phone services.

 

 

I actually have fiber to my house. I love it, but not necessary because of the speed. It's fast at 30-35 mbps, but nowadays cable can be even faster.

 

 

I suspect that the speed for home use may be a limitation of the equipment available rather than the fiber optic cable itself.  The speed that the high-frequency stock traders (all heavily invested in fiber optic cable) can execute trades between Chicago and New Jersey is astonishing.  Essentially, the data can travel from New Jersey to Chicago back to New Jersey faster than the data can travel from New York to New Jersey on the conventional data grid.

 

Google Fiber claims to provide an internet connection speed of one gigabit per second (or 1,000 Mbit/s) for both download and upload for which they assert is roughly 100 times faster access than what most in the U.S. have and claim that the service will allow for the download of a full movie in less than two minutes.

 

Righ now, the use of the fiber optic infrastructure is just in its infancy; however, in general, prices should come down as more players such as Google break down barriers of entry and enter the marketplace. 

Edited December 7, 2014 by Fjd

[The Dude]

I think media servers or HTPC's are the future for those that take this stuff seriously.

 

That's the route I am heading, If I build a media server with Plex on it, then my Xbox, and PS3 act as a HTPC and I have all my movies and music at my finger tips.  

 

 

 

 But hold on, "Big Brother" will want a bigger piece of the pie and the low cost that we are enjoying now may not be so low in the future.  

 

There has been a lot of discussion about cable companies that offer internet services.  Want to charge a "streaming fee" to compensate for this.  The government supposedly put the kibosh on it.  Don't know what is to come of the price of high speed internet with all the streaming going on.  But suspect one day they will get their way.  

Edited December 7, 2014 by duder1982

[Paducah Home Theater]

I suspect that the speed for home use may be a limitation of the equipment available rather than the fiber optic cable itself.

They do throttle it. Plus, all fiber isn't equal. For example old school fiber used to be just either on or off with one light color. Nowadays you can have fiber that has a whole spectrum of colors that is transmitting separate channels that can be combined, just screaming fast.